Jack and National Disability Insurance Agency

This matter concerned an application by Mr Jack for access to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether Mr Jack met the eligibility criteria for access, specifically the "disability requirements" under section 24 or the "early intervention requirements" under section 25 of the *National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013* (Cth). The AAT considered extensive medical evidence obtained through summonses, alongside oral evidence from Mr Jack and his treating general practitioner.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Jack satisfied the "disability requirements" as defined by section 24 of the NDIS Act, or alternatively, the "early intervention requirements" as defined by section 25 of the NDIS Act. These requirements involve considerations of permanency of impairments, the extent to which impairments reduce functional capacity in specific activities, and the meeting of early intervention criteria. The Tribunal also had regard to the legislative framework established by sections 209 and 27 of the NDIS Act, which permit the Minister to make rules prescribing matters and criteria for assessing these requirements.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the evidence presented in relation to Mr Jack's impairments. While the Tribunal found that Mr Jack met the general requirements for access under sections 21 and 22 of the NDIS Act, it concluded that he did not satisfy the specific criteria for either disability or early intervention access. Specifically, the Tribunal determined that Mr Jack failed to meet the second mandatory requirement under section 25(1)(b) of the Act, which relates to early intervention.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) not to grant Mr Jack access to the NDIS. Mr Jack was therefore found not to meet the overall access criteria under section 21 of the Act.